A message from Canada to the Palestinians

[RoccoR]

Saigon, BecauseIKnow, reabhloideach, SherriMunnerlyn, et al,

Is it really this? Or could it be something else?

I have to say that I'm disappointed that the best response Canada can muster to the endless construction in the West Bank is to act as Israel's PR agency.

It is woefully one sided, painfully short-sighted and not beneficial to Canada's normally positive reputation abroad. It seems to me that the Canadians have simply crumpled into the lap of lobbyists.

Regardless of how one sees an eventual solution to the Palestinian issues - the construction are an extremely hostile and counter-productive move.

(COMMENT)

Why should Canadians feel compeled to donate anything at all to the Palestinians? They do this because they feel it is the right thing to do; not because the owe the Palestinians anything.

I live not far from Canada. They are their own people - a proud people, with a mind of their own. If they think America is wrong, believe me when I say, they will tell us in a heartbeat (and they have).

I cannot speak for the Canadians; but, I would venture to say they have a good argument for anything they do. My experience has been that they are well educated and versed on the issues.

No one, with the possible exception of the Arab League, owes the Palestinians anything. I'm sure they can find another benefactor. Maybe their Iranian sponsors will be willing to pickup the slack.

I still think that if the Palestinians believe they have a good case, they should pursue it in court. Let's see it litigated and look at the security issues that the Palestinians have raised.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

You are correct!

The Palestinians were also offered by Ehud Barak a very generous peace settlement at Camp David in 2000, but of course this was rejected by Arafat because the Palestinians won't settle for just a two state solution, what they really want is one state solution!!! that is all of Gaza, the West bank and Israel!

PALESTINIANS = ETERNAL TROUBLEMAKERS

....was it so generous?

The Myth of the Generous Offer

Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region's scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new "independent state" would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called "bypass roads" that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel.

If the positions were reversed - would you have expected Israel to agree to such terms?

No sane person would.

 

[skye]

You are correct!

The Palestinians were also offered by Ehud Barak a very generous peace settlement at Camp David in 2000, but of course this was rejected by Arafat because the Palestinians won't settle for just a two state solution, what they really want is one state solution!!! that is all of Gaza, the West bank and Israel!

PALESTINIANS = ETERNAL TROUBLEMAKERS

....was it so generous?

The Myth of the Generous Offer

Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region's scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new "independent state" would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called "bypass roads" that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel.

If the positions were reversed - would you have expected Israel to agree to such terms?

No sane person would.

You have to be careful in this case, to present reliable sources, which can only be those people who were actually present at the time of the negotiations.
Dennis Ross was the chief Middle East negotiator and was intimately involved in them from start to finish.

The final proposal in December known as the "Clinton Parametres" would have produced an independent Palestinian State with 100% of Gaza, about 97% of the West Bank and an elevated highway to connect them.

The talks fell apart as Arafat was not interested, for the very reason that his aim always called for the destruction of Israel, and to accept a Peace offer would have been seen as a weakness.

Times haven't changed , despite all the hypocrisy and bluster, the Palestinians still want much more than they can ever reasonably expect.

 

[P F Tinmore]

You are correct!

The Palestinians were also offered by Ehud Barak a very generous peace settlement at Camp David in 2000, but of course this was rejected by Arafat because the Palestinians won't settle for just a two state solution, what they really want is one state solution!!! that is all of Gaza, the West bank and Israel!

PALESTINIANS = ETERNAL TROUBLEMAKERS

....was it so generous?

The Myth of the Generous Offer

Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region's scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new "independent state" would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called "bypass roads" that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel.

If the positions were reversed - would you have expected Israel to agree to such terms?

No sane person would.

You have to be careful in this case, to present reliable sources, which can only be those people who were actually present at the time of the negotiations.
Dennis Ross was the chief Middle East negotiator and was intimately involved in them from start to finish.

The final proposal in December known as the "Clinton Parametres" would have produced an independent Palestinian State with 100% of Gaza, about 97% of the West Bank and an elevated highway to connect them.

The talks fell apart as Arafat was not interested, for the very reason that his aim always called for the destruction of Israel, and to accept a Peace offer would have been seen as a weakness.

Times haven't changed , despite all the hypocrisy and bluster, the Palestinians still want much more than they can ever reasonably expect.

You have to be careful in this case, to present reliable sources,

Indeed.

Dennis Ross is a lying sack of crap.

Coyote's version is quite accurate.

 

[Hossfly]

Those are very good points, but when two parties are negotiating, I believe both should make offers and counter offers. Abbas did not make a counter offer from what I understand

I do agree with you, but I am confused about what happened at these meetings.

I read here:

Olmert Details His Offer to Abbas :: Middle East Forum

Olmert claim they had 35 meetings - and then Abbas seemed to lose interest.

That doesn't add up to me. If Olmert offered everything he said he did, I can't see why Abbas wouldn't have at least taken talks to the next level. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Maybe no Arab leader is allowed to make peace with Israel if he knows what is good for him. I thought this opinion piece was interesting.

Things you can't see from DC - Israel Opinion, Ynetnews

 

[Coyote]

You have to be careful in this case, to present reliable sources, which can only be those people who were actually present at the time of the negotiations.
Dennis Ross was the chief Middle East negotiator and was intimately involved in them from start to finish.

The final proposal in December known as the "Clinton Parametres" would have produced an independent Palestinian State with 100% of Gaza, about 97% of the West Bank and an elevated highway to connect them.

The talks fell apart as Arafat was not interested, for the very reason that his aim always called for the destruction of Israel, and to accept a Peace offer would have been seen as a weakness.

Times haven't changed , despite all the hypocrisy and bluster, the Palestinians still want much more than they can ever reasonably expect.

You're not offering any sources much less reliable ones. What you say does not address the specific points given in my source (which linked to other sources) - are you claiming they are all false?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Those are very good points, but when two parties are negotiating, I believe both should make offers and counter offers. Abbas did not make a counter offer from what I understand

I do agree with you, but I am confused about what happened at these meetings.

I read here:

Olmert Details His Offer to Abbas :: Middle East Forum

Olmert claim they had 35 meetings - and then Abbas seemed to lose interest.

That doesn't add up to me. If Olmert offered everything he said he did, I can't see why Abbas wouldn't have at least taken talks to the next level. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Maybe no Arab leader is allowed to make peace with Israel if he knows what is good for him. I thought this opinion piece was interesting.

Things you can't see from DC - Israel Opinion, Ynetnews

US President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are expected to visit the region together in late March to try and promote an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

Move along folks. There is nothing to see here.

 

[skye]

You have to be careful in this case, to present reliable sources, which can only be those people who were actually present at the time of the negotiations.
Dennis Ross was the chief Middle East negotiator and was intimately involved in them from start to finish.

The final proposal in December known as the "Clinton Parametres" would have produced an independent Palestinian State with 100% of Gaza, about 97% of the West Bank and an elevated highway to connect them.

The talks fell apart as Arafat was not interested, for the very reason that his aim always called for the destruction of Israel, and to accept a Peace offer would have been seen as a weakness.

Times haven't changed , despite all the hypocrisy and bluster, the Palestinians still want much more than they can ever reasonably expect.

You're not offering any sources much less reliable ones. What you say does not address the specific points given in my source (which linked to other sources) - are you claiming they are all false?

Your links are unreliable and bias, but if you do your own research you will find what I have said is correct.

The best authorities, rather than the journalists and authors of books and other hearsay are the people who were actually present at the Camp David summit, which were President Clinton, Ehud Barak, Arafat and Dennis Ross.


Clinton blamed Arafat for the failure of the talks, stating "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the oportunity to bring that nation into being". Dennis Ross said "Arafat was unwilling to sing a final deal and the ultimate reason is that Arafat really wanted a one state solution [ie] a single Arab state including Gaza the West Bank and Israel".

Barak himself stated that he had offered Arafat more than 91% of the West Bank and all of the Gaza strip, with other compensation going to the Palestinians.

You must remember that Arafat did not even proposed a counter or final offer .... he merely ended negotiations.

Had he been serious, which of course he wasn't he probably would achieved a much better result for the Palestinians.

 

[Hossfly]

I do agree with you, but I am confused about what happened at these meetings.

I read here:

Olmert Details His Offer to Abbas :: Middle East Forum

Olmert claim they had 35 meetings - and then Abbas seemed to lose interest.

That doesn't add up to me. If Olmert offered everything he said he did, I can't see why Abbas wouldn't have at least taken talks to the next level. It doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Maybe no Arab leader is allowed to make peace with Israel if he knows what is good for him. I thought this opinion piece was interesting.

Things you can't see from DC - Israel Opinion, Ynetnews

US President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are expected to visit the region together in late March to try and promote an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

Move along folks. There is nothing to see here.

Obama and Kerry will be pissing into the wind,

 

[pbel]

I have to say that I'm disappointed that the best response Canada can muster to the endless construction in the West Bank is to act as Israel's PR agency.

It is woefully one sided, painfully short-sighted and not beneficial to Canada's normally positive reputation abroad. It seems to me that the Canadians have simply crumpled into the lap of lobbyists.

Regardless of how one sees an eventual solution to the Palestinian issues - the construction are an extremely hostile and counter-productive move.

Once again Saigon. Abbas was offered 93%, which is virtually all, of the West Bank (as well as Gaza being completely under control of the Palestinians, and sharing East Jerusalem. He rejected.

you keep, dare I say, spaming 93%...can you tell us what the 7% was?

 

[P F Tinmore]

Maybe no Arab leader is allowed to make peace with Israel if he knows what is good for him. I thought this opinion piece was interesting.

Things you can't see from DC - Israel Opinion, Ynetnews

US President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry are expected to visit the region together in late March to try and promote an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

Move along folks. There is nothing to see here.

Obama and Kerry will be pissing into the wind,

Let's do the same thing that has failed for the last 20 years.

 

[P F Tinmore]

I have to say that I'm disappointed that the best response Canada can muster to the endless construction in the West Bank is to act as Israel's PR agency.

It is woefully one sided, painfully short-sighted and not beneficial to Canada's normally positive reputation abroad. It seems to me that the Canadians have simply crumpled into the lap of lobbyists.

Regardless of how one sees an eventual solution to the Palestinian issues - the construction are an extremely hostile and counter-productive move.

Once again Saigon. Abbas was offered 93%, which is virtually all, of the West Bank (as well as Gaza being completely under control of the Palestinians, and sharing East Jerusalem. He rejected.

you keep, dare I say, spaming 93%...can you tell us what the 7% was?

Great question.

 

[pbel]

SNIPPITS AND SNAPPITS: CANADA?S ISRAEL LOBBY

By Peyton Vaughan Lyon
Radical Press
March 4, 2013


This article is an update of a study of the Canada Israel Committee (CIC) published in the Journal of Canadian Studies, 1992-3. It benefited by extensive comments from Professors John Sigler, Joseph Debanné, David Farr and Diana Ralph, and Rt. Hon Robert Stanfield, Ian Watson, and Bahija Reghai. I have discussed the Israel Lobby with about 20 foreign affairs officials, 2 former Prime Ministers, 3 former Secretaries of State for External Affairs, 8 Members of Parliament, 6 Senators, and 3 officials of the Canada-Israel Committee.


MARCH 2010
Canada’s relations with the Arab/Muslim world are second in importance and difficulty only to its relationship with the United States. The one serious threat to Canadian citizens now stems from the mounting anger of Arabs and other Muslims, fomented largely by Israel’s long-standing occupation of Palestine. The Mid-East conflict has for sixty years been the principal issue on the agenda of the UN General Assembly, a body in which Canadians like to shine. Trade with the Middle East, while modest, is largely in manufactured goods, the sort favoured by Canadian exporters.


Canada’s foreign policy, however, fails to reflect these concerns. Its votes in the UN General Assembly and other international bodies are closer in support of Israel than those of any other nation apart from the United States and its five Pacific satellites. Prime Minister Harper’s personal statements are more biased towards Israel than those of any other leader (1)


This imbalance does not accord with the advice of the men and women employed by Canada to determine and implement its interests in the Middle East. It is also opposed by an increasing number of churches, unions, and other bodies concerned with peace and justice in Palestine.


Who makes Canada’s Mid-East policy? A ranking of influence by a panel of foreign affairs officials placed the Canadian Jewish Community first at

 

[tinydancer]

Anyone feel like believing President Clinton? He was there.

In his own words. In the very liberal New York Times blaming Arafat for the failure.

IMPASSE AT CAMP DAVID: THE OVERVIEW; CLINTON ENDS DEADLOCKED PEACE TALKS
By JANE PERLEZ
Published: July 26, 2000


Print

At the end of two weeks of marathon negotiations with the leaders of Israel and the Palestinians, a visibly fatigued President Clinton announced today that they were unable to reach an agreement ''at this time.''

The president and other American mediators made clear that it was Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, who balked in the end, and by all accounts the issue was Jerusalem, the Holy City both Israelis and Palestinians claim as their sacred capital.

Speaking at the White House, Mr. Clinton singled out the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, for his readiness to make hard compromises.

''I would be making a mistake not to praise Barak, because I think he took a big risk,'' the president said. ''The prime minister moved forward more from his initial position than Chairman Arafat, particularly surrounding the question of Jerusalem.''

IMPASSE AT CAMP DAVID: THE OVERVIEW; CLINTON ENDS DEADLOCKED PEACE TALKS - New York Times

 

[tinydancer]

SNIPPITS AND SNAPPITS: CANADA?S ISRAEL LOBBY

By Peyton Vaughan Lyon
Radical Press
March 4, 2013


This article is an update of a study of the Canada Israel Committee (CIC) published in the Journal of Canadian Studies, 1992-3. It benefited by extensive comments from Professors John Sigler, Joseph Debanné, David Farr and Diana Ralph, and Rt. Hon Robert Stanfield, Ian Watson, and Bahija Reghai. I have discussed the Israel Lobby with about 20 foreign affairs officials, 2 former Prime Ministers, 3 former Secretaries of State for External Affairs, 8 Members of Parliament, 6 Senators, and 3 officials of the Canada-Israel Committee.


MARCH 2010
Canada’s relations with the Arab/Muslim world are second in importance and difficulty only to its relationship with the United States. The one serious threat to Canadian citizens now stems from the mounting anger of Arabs and other Muslims, fomented largely by Israel’s long-standing occupation of Palestine. The Mid-East conflict has for sixty years been the principal issue on the agenda of the UN General Assembly, a body in which Canadians like to shine. Trade with the Middle East, while modest, is largely in manufactured goods, the sort favoured by Canadian exporters.


Canada’s foreign policy, however, fails to reflect these concerns. Its votes in the UN General Assembly and other international bodies are closer in support of Israel than those of any other nation apart from the United States and its five Pacific satellites. Prime Minister Harper’s personal statements are more biased towards Israel than those of any other leader (1)


This imbalance does not accord with the advice of the men and women employed by Canada to determine and implement its interests in the Middle East. It is also opposed by an increasing number of churches, unions, and other bodies concerned with peace and justice in Palestine.


Who makes Canada’s Mid-East policy? A ranking of influence by a panel of foreign affairs officials placed the Canadian Jewish Community first at

The link is to Radical Press?

 

[pbel]

SNIPPITS AND SNAPPITS: CANADA?S ISRAEL LOBBY

By Peyton Vaughan Lyon
Radical Press
March 4, 2013


This article is an update of a study of the Canada Israel Committee (CIC) published in the Journal of Canadian Studies, 1992-3. It benefited by extensive comments from Professors John Sigler, Joseph Debanné, David Farr and Diana Ralph, and Rt. Hon Robert Stanfield, Ian Watson, and Bahija Reghai. I have discussed the Israel Lobby with about 20 foreign affairs officials, 2 former Prime Ministers, 3 former Secretaries of State for External Affairs, 8 Members of Parliament, 6 Senators, and 3 officials of the Canada-Israel Committee.


MARCH 2010
Canada’s relations with the Arab/Muslim world are second in importance and difficulty only to its relationship with the United States. The one serious threat to Canadian citizens now stems from the mounting anger of Arabs and other Muslims, fomented largely by Israel’s long-standing occupation of Palestine. The Mid-East conflict has for sixty years been the principal issue on the agenda of the UN General Assembly, a body in which Canadians like to shine. Trade with the Middle East, while modest, is largely in manufactured goods, the sort favoured by Canadian exporters.


Canada’s foreign policy, however, fails to reflect these concerns. Its votes in the UN General Assembly and other international bodies are closer in support of Israel than those of any other nation apart from the United States and its five Pacific satellites. Prime Minister Harper’s personal statements are more biased towards Israel than those of any other leader (1)


This imbalance does not accord with the advice of the men and women employed by Canada to determine and implement its interests in the Middle East. It is also opposed by an increasing number of churches, unions, and other bodies concerned with peace and justice in Palestine.


Who makes Canada’s Mid-East policy? A ranking of influence by a panel of foreign affairs officials placed the Canadian Jewish Community first at

The link is to Radical Press?

Did you find any inaccuracies?

 

[tinydancer]

SNIPPITS AND SNAPPITS: CANADA?S ISRAEL LOBBY

By Peyton Vaughan Lyon
Radical Press
March 4, 2013


This article is an update of a study of the Canada Israel Committee (CIC) published in the Journal of Canadian Studies, 1992-3. It benefited by extensive comments from Professors John Sigler, Joseph Debanné, David Farr and Diana Ralph, and Rt. Hon Robert Stanfield, Ian Watson, and Bahija Reghai. I have discussed the Israel Lobby with about 20 foreign affairs officials, 2 former Prime Ministers, 3 former Secretaries of State for External Affairs, 8 Members of Parliament, 6 Senators, and 3 officials of the Canada-Israel Committee.


MARCH 2010
Canada’s relations with the Arab/Muslim world are second in importance and difficulty only to its relationship with the United States. The one serious threat to Canadian citizens now stems from the mounting anger of Arabs and other Muslims, fomented largely by Israel’s long-standing occupation of Palestine. The Mid-East conflict has for sixty years been the principal issue on the agenda of the UN General Assembly, a body in which Canadians like to shine. Trade with the Middle East, while modest, is largely in manufactured goods, the sort favoured by Canadian exporters.


Canada’s foreign policy, however, fails to reflect these concerns. Its votes in the UN General Assembly and other international bodies are closer in support of Israel than those of any other nation apart from the United States and its five Pacific satellites. Prime Minister Harper’s personal statements are more biased towards Israel than those of any other leader (1)


This imbalance does not accord with the advice of the men and women employed by Canada to determine and implement its interests in the Middle East. It is also opposed by an increasing number of churches, unions, and other bodies concerned with peace and justice in Palestine.


Who makes Canada’s Mid-East policy? A ranking of influence by a panel of foreign affairs officials placed the Canadian Jewish Community first at

The link is to Radical Press?

Did you find any inaccuracies?

Yeah. It's bullshit. I'm a Canadian. The Conservative government of Canada has been extremely supportive of Palestine.

How's $300 freaking million of our tax dollars going Palestine?
From our government website.

Support for the Palestinians

Canada recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination and supports the creation of a sovereign, independent, viable, democratic and territorially contiguous Palestinian state, as part of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace settlement.

Canada recognizes the Palestinian Authority (PA) as the governmental entity in the West Bank and Gaza. Canada also recognizes the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the principal representative of the Palestinian people Canada continues to support Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and is working with the government led by Prime Minister Salem Fayyad in terms of much needed reform.

Working with its partners and through the United Nations, its agencies and other organizations, Canada continues to support and respond to the humanitarian and development needs of the Palestinian people. At the Paris Donors Conference in December 2007, Canada announced a commitment of $300 million over 5 years towards improving Palestinian security, governance and prosperity.

Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

 

[Connery]

You have to be careful in this case, to present reliable sources, which can only be those people who were actually present at the time of the negotiations.
Dennis Ross was the chief Middle East negotiator and was intimately involved in them from start to finish.

The final proposal in December known as the "Clinton Parametres" would have produced an independent Palestinian State with 100% of Gaza, about 97% of the West Bank and an elevated highway to connect them.

The talks fell apart as Arafat was not interested, for the very reason that his aim always called for the destruction of Israel, and to accept a Peace offer would have been seen as a weakness.

Times haven't changed , despite all the hypocrisy and bluster, the Palestinians still want much more than they can ever reasonably expect.

You're not offering any sources much less reliable ones. What you say does not address the specific points given in my source (which linked to other sources) - are you claiming they are all false?

Your links are unreliable and bias, but if you do your own research you will find what I have said is correct.

The best authorities, rather than the journalists and authors of books and other hearsay are the people who were actually present at the Camp David summit, which were President Clinton, Ehud Barak, Arafat and Dennis Ross.


Clinton blamed Arafat for the failure of the talks, stating "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the oportunity to bring that nation into being". Dennis Ross said "Arafat was unwilling to sing a final deal and the ultimate reason is that Arafat really wanted a one state solution [ie] a single Arab state including Gaza the West Bank and Israel".

Barak himself stated that he had offered Arafat more than 91% of the West Bank and all of the Gaza strip, with other compensation going to the Palestinians.

You must remember that Arafat did not even proposed a counter or final offer .... he merely ended negotiations.

Had he been serious, which of course he wasn't he probably would achieved a much better result for the Palestinians.

Anyone feel like believing President Clinton? He was there.

In his own words. In the very liberal New York Times blaming Arafat for the failure.

IMPASSE AT CAMP DAVID: THE OVERVIEW; CLINTON ENDS DEADLOCKED PEACE TALKS
By JANE PERLEZ
Published: July 26, 2000


Print

At the end of two weeks of marathon negotiations with the leaders of Israel and the Palestinians, a visibly fatigued President Clinton announced today that they were unable to reach an agreement ''at this time.''

The president and other American mediators made clear that it was Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, who balked in the end, and by all accounts the issue was Jerusalem, the Holy City both Israelis and Palestinians claim as their sacred capital.

Speaking at the White House, Mr. Clinton singled out the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, for his readiness to make hard compromises.

''I would be making a mistake not to praise Barak, because I think he took a big risk,'' the president said. ''The prime minister moved forward more from his initial position than Chairman Arafat, particularly surrounding the question of Jerusalem.''

IMPASSE AT CAMP DAVID: THE OVERVIEW; CLINTON ENDS DEADLOCKED PEACE TALKS - New York Times

The following corroborates the aforementioned this is threee diferent sources all stating essentially the same thing.

Shlomo Ben-Ami was Israel's top negotiator during the July 2000 Camp David summit. In the following excerpt from an interview he gave in Ha'aretz (September 13, 2001), Ben-Ami reflects on the summit and his subsequent conclusions about Palestinian intentions. Question: Didn't the Palestinians make a counterproposal? Answer: "No. And that is the heart of the matter. Never, in the negotiations between us and the Palestinians, was there a Palestinian counterproposal. There never was and there never will be. So the Israeli negotiator always finds himself in a dilemma: Either I get up and walk out because these guys aren't ready to put forward proposals of their own, or I make another concession. In the end, even the most moderate negotiator reaches a point where he understands that there is no end to it."
Insider Reflects on Failure of 2000 Camp David Summit

Ben-Ami's Camp David Diaries

 

[P F Tinmore]

The link is to Radical Press?

Did you find any inaccuracies?

Yeah. It's bullshit. I'm a Canadian. The Conservative government of Canada has been extremely supportive of Palestine.

How's $300 freaking million of our tax dollars going Palestine?
From our government website.

Support for the Palestinians

Canada recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination and supports the creation of a sovereign, independent, viable, democratic and territorially contiguous Palestinian state, as part of a comprehensive, just and lasting peace settlement.

Canada recognizes the Palestinian Authority (PA) as the governmental entity in the West Bank and Gaza. Canada also recognizes the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the principal representative of the Palestinian people Canada continues to support Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and is working with the government led by Prime Minister Salem Fayyad in terms of much needed reform.

Working with its partners and through the United Nations, its agencies and other organizations, Canada continues to support and respond to the humanitarian and development needs of the Palestinian people. At the Paris Donors Conference in December 2007, Canada announced a commitment of $300 million over 5 years towards improving Palestinian security, governance and prosperity.

Canadian Policy on Key Issues in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Canada continues to support Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and is working with the government led by Prime Minister Salem Fayyad in terms of much needed reform.

Abbas left the government in June of 2007 and Fayyad has never been the prime minister of Palestine.

 

[irosie91]

Muslim leaders and clerics have promised more than a billion people
that Israel will be destroyed with the help of divine providence.
BLASPHEMY is a capital crime in islamic law.
A peace agreement and recognition of Israel by a muslim leader
constitutes BLASPHEMY-----

there is no possible way out of the dilemma other than having
hundreds of thouands of Imams delivering impassioned sermons
to covince the muslims of the world that allah changed his mind.

the very best way to get communications from allah is
for important people to have DREAMS